Not long ago, I contacted a friend to ask if he was interested in seeing the new Woody Allen film, Magic in the Moonlight. His reply was terse, something to the effect that he would not support the work of a child molester, a reference I presume to Allen’s marriage to his adopted daughter. At the time of the wedding, Allen’s former wife, Mia Farrow, aired her objections in the media but in the eyes of the law, Allen had committed no crime. The marriage went forward and my friend, among others, never forgave him.

I’ve long held that an artist’s life should be kept apart from an appreciation of his or her work (Blogs 8/5/14, 8/14/14)). Many a genius has been guilty of crimes and misdemeanors for which they were condemned and even imprisoned. Caravaggio was accused of murder and exiled, Oscar Wilde imprisoned for homosexuality, Ezra Pound declared insane and incarcerated for his support of Mussolini while others, like Gertrude Stein and William Yeats, had their reputations tarnished because of their admiration for Adolf Hitler. The list would be lengthy if I were to be thorough, but my point is that the works of all these artists have survived scandal, putting history on my side. Art stands apart from its maker just as the rose that blooms in the garden never acknowledges the hands that planted it. Human failings, as writer Jed Perl notes, do not equate with artistic ones. (“Liberals Against Art,” by Jed Perl, The New Republic, August 25, 2014, pg. 49.)

As he also points out, art is freestanding and not a vessel into which the artist, his deeds and/or his epoch are poured. Art is the product of imagination with its own laws and logic (Ibid pg. 51) It is more akin to inspiration than a truth teller and does not so much reflect our existence as embellish it with revelatory shades of light and dark as if life were a chiaroscuro paining.

I agree with Perl, too, that beauty is a thing irreducible. We know it when we see it, though we are unable to measure, quantify or define it. It is more than something pleasing to the eye. It is a moment of intuition that makes us gasp as if we’ve caught a glimpse of the eternal.

But I’m getting carried away. All I wanted to say was that I regret my friend’s decision to condemn Allen’s art as well as the man. He’s a filmmaker who provides more moments of insights than failed ones. His art is worth my time.

I agree with this, Carolyn. Even if an artist were guilty of a crime, society still deserves the gift of that person's soul, heart, spirit - whatever you want to call it - so that some good, some additional knowledge might be gleaned.

Thank you for your comment, Anne. Others will not agree with us but, like you, I feel the muse chooses whom it wishes to inspire. I don't question. We are free to admire what is given or turn our eyes away. If we turn away, however, I believe we are poorer for it. Even a weed has its purpose.

What if the crimes were multiple and over the course of the artist's lifetime/career? And, what if the crimes involved children and broken trust? And, finally, what if the artist had a great following but was actually not particularly gifted?

It's true, Margaret, that one's moral convictions might override an appreciation for a work of art. But that's an emotional response, having nothing to do with the art itself. By way of example, should a "child" be condemned and shunned because of the sins of the parent? As for an artist having a great following but no talent, you know that's a different question. What's popular isn't necessarily art. You also know that you have answered your own question. If something is popular, the audience has already decided the behavior of the artist is irrelevant.

A lot of artists/entertainers were not known to a world wide audience and it's only in retrospect that their misdemeanors/crimes are known to us. Now with the Internet and global reporting we find things out about people who for example have had huge popularity and whose prolific output becomes instantly problematic because of their past behaviour. A town has had a mural painted in a public place for instance - should they have it painted over? The art work reminds many victims of similar crime of this artist's secret life and those who are not victims don't feel comfortable seeing it either. It's a dilemma for that town and I'm of a mind to say paint over it but of course once the dust settles and the court trial is over the emotions are not as heightened and we forget about it.

The wall painting is an interesting example. In 50 years, should the painting last, would people marvel at the art or be concerned about the artist? Carriveccio was a murderer. Nonetheless, his art survives him and his work is considered to be among great masterpieces of western art. To appreciate his genius is not to approve of his morality. I think, there will always be a divide, Margaret, between those who feel the morality of the artist in someway affects his or her work. But frankly, the world would be poorer had Carriveccio not been something more than a murderer. He made a monumental contribution to art whether we wish to honor the man as a man. My own choice when looking at art is not to confuse the creation with the creator.

The issue for your friend may be that it was likely NOT the marriage to Sun Yi, as questionable and unsavory as it was, that bothered your friend, but rather the past and more recent allegations that resurfaced this year by his adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, who published an anguished letter earlier this year in the New York Times (see link: http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0).
Her mother, brother, and a number of family friends have long supported her allegations, and I have also stopped watching Woody Allen films. although I understand the difference between art and perpetrator. But in the case of Woody Allen, I feel his art historically and presently seems to reflect the very pov that destroyed a child in his care, and continues to examine and glorify this very narrative of desiring very young women. That is where Allen, for me and perhaps your friend, too, has lost its gloss. The recurring portrayal of very young and "undeveloped" women in Allen's films, as well as his life, disturbs me. I did watch Midnight in Paris and Vicky Barcelona, so I fall off the wagon, but I don't enjoy his work as much, and I feel viscerally uncomfortable when certain recurring tropes reappear.
Reading Dylan's letter, as well as one written by her brother, has influenced my decision. But most of all, the very expression of his art has struck one of my non-negotiable, pedophilia.

Your points are well taken, Pamela. Some people just don't care for Allen's world view. That is a comment about his art. As for Dylan's accusation, because it hasn't reached a court of law and remains an accusation, there is no way to judge Allen's conduct. Speculation would be inappropriate and would have no relevance to his art, in any case.

Caroline published a serialized novelette, Marie Eau-Claire, on the website, The Colored Lens. She also published the story Gustav Pavel, a parable about ordinary lives, choice and alternate potential, on the website Fixional.co.